3 ms·
> But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. Why should they not apply? The more unfor
by haswell 3y ago
> But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply.
Why should they not apply? The more unfortunate aspects of the human condition haven't changed very much throughout history, and only recently is it possible to make a poor decision that may be the laughingstock of millions of people tomorrow. If anything, the social media landscape makes those sorts of norms more important than they’ve ever been.
> An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation.
An inebriated person by definition isn’t making that decision knowingly. And that’s the point of a stance towards decency. When someone is in a compromised state and unable to fully take care of themselves, it seems especially shitty to take advantage of them in that state.
I’m not saying that being publicly intoxicated is something that deserves no concern. But taking photos/videos and/or publicly shaming people isn’t the answer.
Picture yourself on your worst day. A day that you would strongly prefer never happened. And ask yourself if it’s helping anything if people record you and turn you into social media fodder.
Theres a moral/ethical bankruptcy at the center of this.
- brutusborn 3y agoYou are assuming that addicts have no agency, which as a former addict I reject. It is a pernicious idea because it feeds into beliefs of hopelessness. I’m not saying their choice is easy, but they have a choice. I wish I had footage of me on my worst day. I would prefer it not be broadcast, but I would accept that my public actions are public.
- haswell 3y agoI’m not assuming there’s no agency. I’m saying that they are operating in a compromised state. As a former addict, you should know well the steep hill to climb to exert any kind of control. My point is that people get stuck in very unfortunate situations, often for reasons more complex than any of us can understand. Addiction is not something to ridicule, and compassion seems the most ideal baseline. And I appreciate your personal perspective on this, but don’t think it confers much to the appropriateness of recording other people who don’t share your views.
- brutusborn 3y ago“isn’t making that decision knowingly” suggests a lack of agency. Being compromised doesn’t remove your choices, it just makes them harder. Treating addicts like automatons stuck in a loop isn’t helpful. It seems to be the leading belief in the west, and we all know addiction problems are getting worse, especially in the US. This belief is baseless and unhelpful, and needs to be discarded.
- Log_out_ 3y agoSocial Fast self destructive automaton, ideal capitalism on a speedrun.
- haswell 3y ago> This belief is baseless and unhelpful, and needs to be discarded. Based on what? I’m not saying that every addicted person is a helpless automaton, but people are often subject to factors over which they have no control, and some instances of addiction are indeed close to someone being stuck in a loop until someone from the outside can intervene. This is why criminalization or ignoring the problem is so problematic. Many of these people need psychological help and supportive treatment. I’d also suggest that many of these people have fallen into a form of learned helplessness. In this state, they don’t actually believe they can do anything to change the situation, and so their brains never muster the will to do so. This is a well studied phenomena and I’d recommend the book “Learned Optimism” by Martin Seligman which explores the original research and discovery of Learned Helplessness. It’s a phenomena that is highly relevant to addiction, and “they should just try harder” isn’t a realistic stance.